dismissed L-1A Case: Retail

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
MATTER OF R- INC. 
APPEAL OF VERMONT SER VICE CENTER DECISION 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
DATE: APR. 29, 2019 
PETITION: FORM 1-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER 
The Petitioner operates a gas station/convenience store 1 and seeks to temporarily employ the 
Beneficiary as "owner & president" of its new office2 under the L-lA nonimmigrant classification for 
intracompany transferees. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) Section 10l(a)(l5)(L), 
8 U.S.C. § l 10l(a)(l5)(L). The L-lA classification allows a corporation or other legal entity (including 
its affiliate or subsidiary) to transfer a qualifying foreign employee to the United States to work 
temporarily in a managerial or executive capacity. 
The Director of the Vermont Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner did not 
establish, as required, that the new office would support the Beneficiary in a managerial or executive 
position within one year of the petition's approval. The Director expressed concerns about the realistic 
expectation that the Petitioner will attain an organizational complexity to support the Beneficiary in a 
managerial or executive position. 
On appeal, 3 the Petitioner disputes the denial contending that the Director "did not have a factual 
understanding of [the Beneficiary]' s business success with several companies he owned overseas." 
Upon de nova review, we find that the petitioner has not overcome the basis for denial. Therefore, we 
will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LEGAL FRAMEWORK 
To establish eligibility for the L-lA nonimmigrant visa classification in a petition involving a new 
office, a qualifying organization must have employed the beneficiary in a managerial or executive 
capacity for one continuous year within three years preceding the beneficiary's application for 
1 Although the Petitioner identified itself in the petition form as an import-export operation, it did not specify the goods or 
products it would import and export and offered evidence that it owns and operates a gas station/convenience store. 
2 The term "new office" refers to an organization which has been doing business in the United States for less than one year. 
8 C.F.R. § 214.2(l)(l)(ii)(F). The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3)(v)(C) allows a "new office" operation no more than 
one year within the date of approval of the petition to support an executive or managerial position. 
3 Although we questioned the Petitioner's "terminated" business status pursuant to a routine search of state business 
records, the Petitioner has responded to our intent to dismiss and request for evidence showing that it has satisfied state 
requirements and is currently in good standing in the Commonwealth of Virginia, where it conducts business. 
Matter of R-Inc. 
admission into the United States. 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3)(v)(B). In addition, the beneficiary must seek 
to enter the United States temporarily to continue rendering his or her services to the same employer 
or a subsidiary or affiliate thereof in a managerial or executive capacity. Id. 
The petitioner must submit evidence to demonstrate that the new office will be able to support a 
managerial or executive position within one year. This evidence must establish that the petitioner 
secured sufficient physical premises to house its operation and disclose the proposed nature and scope 
of the entity, its organizational structure, its financial goals, and the size of the U.S. investment. See 
generally, 8 C.F.R. § 214.2(1)(3)(v). 
11. U.S. EMPLOYMENT IN AN EXECUTIVE CAPACITY 
The Petitioner claims that it will employ the Beneficiary in an executive capacity. The primary issue 
to be addressed in this discussion is whether the Petitioner provided sufficient evidence to establish 
that its operation would support the Beneficiary in an executive capacity within one year of the 
petition's approval. 
"Executive capacity" means an assignment within an organization in which the employee primarily 
directs the management of the organization or a major component or function of the organization; 
establishes the goals and policies of the organization, component, or function; exercises wide latitude 
in discretionary decision-making; and receives only general supervision or direction from higher-level 
executives, the board of directors, or stockholders of the organization. Section 10l(a)(44)(B) of the 
Act. 
A Duties 
The record shows that the Petitioner owned and operated a gas station/convenience store at the time 
of filing. Although the petition form indicates that the Petitioner will do business as an import-export 
operation, the Petitioner did not identify any goods or products it would export and instead provided 
information that focused exclusively on its purchase and operation of a gas station/convenience store, 
which came equipped with five store clerks who worked for the previous owner. 
In a separate cover letter, the Petitioner provided a job duty breakdown stating that during its first year 
of operation the Beneficiary will analyze costs and establish budget requirements, review performance 
data and determine ways to reduce costs, determine staffing requirements, prepare customs documents 
and financial statements, make financial forecasts, set profit goals and implement "innovative 
marketing strategies," and approve pricing policies. The Petitioner stated that a store manager would 
"take over the administrative and day-to-day duties" within its first year of operation and claimed that 
the Beneficiary will direct and oversee the daily operations and performance of its gas 
station/convenience stores. The Petitioner did not provide a similar job duty breakdown for the second 
year of operation. Instead, it broadly stated that the Beneficiary will "direct operations" for two gas 
station/convenience stores, develop strategies to improve its business model, monitor revenue and 
profits, track industry trends, develop policies and procedures, and oversee personnel. 
2 
Matter of R-Inc. 
The Petitioner also provided a business plan indicating that it intends to expand its business by 
purchasing a second gas station/convenience store during its second year of its operation. However, 
it did not define the Beneficiary's role in the expansion process, state the specific tasks he would 
perform, or indicate the portion of time the Beneficiary would allocate to any non-executive job duties 
that are associated with the anticipated expansion. Further, the Petitioner stated that its current store 
is staffed with store clerks and a station manager and that the second operation will be similarly staffed. 
Despite indicating that the gas station manager would make staffing decisions and ensure that the staff 
acts in accordance with the company's goals and policies, section 5.1 of the business plan states that 
the Beneficiary "will personally supervise the work of his employees" to ensure that they provide good 
customer service; the plan does not indicate the precise portion of time that the Beneficiary would 
allocate to overseeing the non-managerial and non-professional convenience store staff beyond the 
Petitioner's first year of operation. 
Further, the record shows that a market analysis was conducted to determine the ideal location for a 
gas station/convenience store and indicates that a similar analysis would be conducted to determine 
the location for the second operation. The Petitioner did not state who, if not the Beneficiary, would 
perform the market analysis going forward. Likewise, the Petitioner described various marketing 
strategies it plans to implement, including the use of social media outlets, to communicate with 
prospective customers. However, it did not explain the role of "social media presence" within the 
scope of a gas station/convenience store nor did it state who, if not the Beneficiary, would be 
responsible for carrying out this marketing-related job duty. 
In a request for evidence (RFE), the Director observed that the record lacks sufficient evidence 
demonstrating that the Petitioner will undergo sufficient growth in its first year of operation so that it 
would support the Beneficiary in a position that would require the primary portion of his time to be 
allocated to executive-level job duties. The Director further noted that the Petitioner did not establish 
that its projected staff would relieve the Beneficiary from having to primarily perform non-executive 
job duties within one year of the petition's approval. 
In response, the Petitioner provided a statement describing the Beneficiary's history and success in 
other business endeavors, asserting that these past successes will ensure the Petitioner's success and 
its ability to transition the Beneficiary to an executive position with primarily executive job duties. 
Although the Petitioner repeated its intended plans for expansion, it acknowledged the possibility that 
the expansion would not take place within a one-year period. Nevertheless, the Petitioner maintained 
the claim that the Beneficiary would transition to an executive position within one year asserting that 
his sole ownership of the entity is indicative of the executive nature of the proposed position, which 
will include reviewing financials, having discretionary authority over staffing issues "and company 
decisions," and developing "a practical expansion strategy." The Petitioner stated that the store clerks 
and store manager will "insulate" the Beneficiary from having to perform non-executive job duties, 
such as purchasing products and setting schedules for the store clerks. The Petitioner broadly stated 
that the Beneficiary will be responsible for overseeing the store manager to ensure proper handling of 
the "logistical tasks," introducing policies and procedures, and ensuring that tasks are completed 
timely and according to company policies. 
3 
Matter of R-Inc. 
The Petitioner also provided a letter from the former owner of the Petitioner's gas station/convenience 
listing the various job duties performed by the store manager and clerks during the course of his 
ownership. This information does not, however, impart relevant information about the actual job 
duties the Beneficiary would carry out as the owner of a gas station/convenience store operation. 
We find that the Petitioner provided a deficient job description that is so general that it could describe 
virtually any executive or senior management position with any company. The job description offers 
only vague information that focuses on the Beneficiary's discretionary authority, but says little about 
the actual tasks he would perform once the company is no longer in the "new office" stage of 
development. Specifics are clearly an important indication of whether a beneficiary's duties are 
primarily executive or managerial in nature, otherwise meeting the definitions would simply be a 
matter ofreiterating the regulations. Fedin Bros. Co., Ltd v. Sava, 724 F. Supp. 1103, 1108 (E.D.N.Y. 
1989), aff'd, 905 F.2d 41 (2d. Cir. 1990). Although the Beneficiary's duties may change as the 
company expands, the Petitioner can only speculate as to when the expansion would actually take 
place and it has provided no specific information as to the Beneficiary's role and job duties in the 
course of that expansion. 
In the denial decision, the Director reiterated concerns about the likelihood that the Petitioner's 
operational complexity would adequately develop to support the Beneficiary in an executive position 
within one year of the petition's approval. The Petitioner contends that the Director did not properly 
focus on the Petitioner's ability to support the Beneficiary in an executive position within one year of 
this petition's approval. 
We find that the Director repeatedly remarked on the lack of evidence that the Petitioner would 
adequately develop and be able to support the Beneficiary in an executive position within one year of 
this petition's approval. We also find that the Beneficiary's history in successfully running foreign 
businesses, whose operations did not involve a gas station/convenience store, is not probative in this 
matter, where the primary focus is on an entirely different business activity and the likelihood that an 
entity operating as a gas station/convenience store would be able to support the Beneficiary in an 
executive capacity within one year of the petition's approval. 
We acknowledge that the Beneficiary, as the Petitioner's owner, would assume a position as its most 
senior employee and that as a result, he would have authority to establish plans, policies, and objectives 
for the company and make major decisions regarding its finances and overall direction. However, the 
Petitioner has not established that these types of responsibilities would primarily occupy the 
Beneficiary's time within one year of this petition's approval. By statute, eligibility for this 
classification requires that the duties of a position be "primarily" executive in nature. Section 
10l(A)(44)(B) of the Act. Therefore, even though the Beneficiary may exercise discretion over the 
Petitioner's day-to-day operations, a broad overview of his responsibilities in overseeing the 
operations of a gas station/convenience store is insufficient to establish that his actual duties during 
the Petitioner's first year of operation would lead to primarily executive duties within one year of this 
petition's approval. 
4 
Matter of R-Inc. 
B. Projected Staffing and Business Plan 
Next, we will address the Petitioner's staffing and organizational hierarchy and the Beneficiary's 
position within that hierarchy. If staffing levels are used as a factor in determining whether an 
individual is acting in a managerial capacity, we take into account the reasonable needs of the 
organization, in light of its overall purpose and stage of development. See section 10l(a)(44)(C) of 
the Act. 
The Petitioner claimed five employees at the time of filing and indicated that they would perform the 
duties necessary to service the customers of a gas station/convenience store operation. The Petitioner 
provided evidence showing that it purchased the retail operation with an existing staff However, it 
did not clarify how its staffing structure, within the context of a gas station/convenience store retail 
operation, would elevate the Beneficiary to an executive position. 
In the RFE response, the Petitioner reiterated its intent to expand its operation by purchasing a second 
gas station/convenience store, although it stated that it "cannot guarantee" that its expansion plans 
would materialize within its first year. Nevertheless, the Petitioner maintained the claim that the 
Beneficiary would transition to an executive position within its existing retail operation by the end of 
its first year, pointing to the Beneficiary's position as the company's "sole owner" as a supporting 
factor. We note, however, that an individual will not be deemed an executive under the statute simply 
because they have an executive title or because they "direct" the enterprise as the owner or sole 
managerial employee. Section 10l(a)(44)(B) of the Act. The Petitioner must support its assertions 
with relevant, probative, and credible evidence. See Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 376 (AAO 
2010). Although the Petitioner claimed that the store staff would "insulate" the Beneficiary from 
having to perform non-executive job duties, as noted earlier, it provided only a vague job description 
and did not specify the actual executive tasks the Beneficiary would perform on a daily or weekly 
basis within the context of its business operation. 
In light of the deficient evidence the Petitioner has submitted to support this petition, we cannot 
conclude that it would have the staffing composition to elevate the Beneficiary to an executive position 
within one year where he would primarily focus on the broad goals and policies of the organization 
rather than the day-to-day operations of the enterprise. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons. In visa petition proceedings, it is the 
petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the immigration benefit sought. Section 291 of the Act, 
8 U.S.C. § 1361. The Petitioner has not met that burden. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Cite as Matter ofR-Inc., ID# 2232517 (AAO Apr. 29, 2019) 
5